Yes that's the point which some of the other posters are ignoring, SRT of the late 90's was perhaps the best player to have played LOI, I doubt anyone can challenge that except based on certain/selective stats, but he was a much bigger match winner, especially in tests. In the noughties(more so) because he could fall back on the likes of Sehwag, Gambhir, Ganguly, Laxman, Dravid, UV, MAD in different forms of the game, hence he started accumulating, a luxury Kohli has had virtually throughout his career.
Now what we saw in SA or NZ shows why SRT was such a great because he could single handedly bring us close to an impossible win, in tough games, but he lacked the backing of a UV or MSD hence we lost those games. If the other poster thinks that results don't matter than he;s joking, in an absurd way mind you, because had Ind lost these games in which Kohli has performed then he'd be labeled as SRT v2.0 for not winning us games ! He's playing it both ways I guess ~ Kohli is better because he closes games(yay India wins but according to him it doesn;t matter!) & it doesn't matter whether we have UV/MSD at the end because SRT was a better batsman so he ought to have chased those improbable totals down just on his own, even though he was the opener but that doesn't matter either !
If you are referring to me, then let me tell you that you have got TOTALLY CONFUSED with all my points and think that I may be going for both ways.
Haha. Its not true.
Read this post patiently.
First before I talk about my view, let me tell you a fact. I think its important to know.
I have defended Sachin when many people used to blindly hate him and accused him of all stuff. I can pull up stats, do extensive analysis and bring in all the points that you bring in. Its too easy for me. I can speak for both FOR and AGAINST the discussion we are having now. I can do it all day long because I have defended Sachin so many times in the past against blind hate.
But at the end, I would know what the truth is. And for that to emerge, we need to first see what the concept of temperament means in cricket.
Temperament doesn't mean scoring runs.
It doesn't mean winning matches.
Temperament LEADS to those things (scoring runs, winning matches) but is NOT DEFINED by those things.
Let me give you an example.
If a player gets out to a PEACH OF A DELIVERY in 10 games scoring less than 20, would you call that lack of temperament? Absolutely not. I would maybe call that as a lack of concentration or skill to block the peach of a delivery to remain not out but NOT temperament.
So what does temperament mean?
It means the ability to ANALYZE the match on the go.
It means the ability to know WHAT to do and WHEN to do that.
It means the ability to understand what your team's strength and weakness is and what your opponent's strength and weakness is.
Before I move on, please this question:
1. How many people BLAMED Sachin when he got out to 142 in Sharjah in the game before the finals?
2. How many people BLAMED Dravid for slogging (and getting out) in the England test match when he was stranded with a tailender?
3. How many people BLAMED Sachin for not finishing the game in the 1999 Chennai Test?
4. How many people BLAMED Kohli when he was in full flow and got out at 124 in the recent NZ series?
Answer: None.
You know why?
Because all of the above examples does not show lack of temperament even though India didn't win. When you are the ONLY person there or CIRCUMSTANCES forces you to play in a certain way and you get out, no one blames you. Instead they praise you. The concept of temperament doesn't come here.
Where it comes is when you are in form or in decent flow and you choose
1. A wrong shot to play
2. A wrong bowler to attack in the rush of a moment
Temperament is questioned when you are in CONTROL and you make a mistake.
Its not questioned when you are FORCED to do things in a certain way.
Now its too easy to say
1. Sachin played with a lulloo team
2. Sachin destroyed better bowlers in 90's
3. Sachin had the best average in 90's
4. Sachin didn't have finishers to finish the game
All that is true.
But all that would reflect in the final match result more than temperament. Its easy to club it into the argument of temperament which is not true at all. Sachin had lost his wicket due to his temperament many times. Sure you can use his stats, and thrashing of better bowlers to make it look like it hasn't but whenever he got out by being helpless, NO ONE QUESTIONED him.
Its when he was in control and he got out to an unnecessary shot or poor strategy, he was questioned.
One recent example is Hobart.
But I will give you one more example where Sachin's heroics won his team the game.
Take the WC 2003 encounter against Pakistan.
It was one of Sachin's greatest ODI innings.
I am NOT going to talk about his dismissal as he was tiring then and it was a PEACH of a delivery.
I am going to talk about something else. When Sachin had destroyed Akhtar by taking calculated risks (the shots were mostly risk free if you think about it), things were going smoothly. Suddenly 2 wickets fell. Things got dull and Wasim and co were exerting a bit of pressure.
What did Sachin do?
He tried to smash Wasim over mid off. Luckily Razzaq was standing very much inside the circle so he dropped the catch. Else it was a simple catch and who knows - we may have lost the match. Now I don't remember the exact details but I remember that things got dull, every shot wasn't exactly working perfectly (in that dull period) and Sachin tried this release shot.
If it didn't work, India could have lost the match.
This is WHERE temperament comes into play.
I admit he exhibited incredible temperament that game but that momentarily lapse could have gone either way.
If I were to dig up all Sachin innings, there would be quite a few crucial innings where I can show you him losing his wicket due to a temperament issue. How do I know? I have watched the match. I may not remember the details or the stats but the opinion that Sachin would lose his wicket in certain unnecessary situations remains. Of course, he has played many good flawless knocks too but you get my idea, right?
Also another other area where Sachin's temperament gets questioned:
Nervous 90's (the amount of times Sachin has shifted the entire momentum of the innings in his 90's is a LOT...sure he has scored centuries smoothly in many innings too but many other innings his 90's was an issue - recent eg - match against Bangladesh Asia Cup (100th 100) and against SA (WC 2011))
The amount of times Sachin has got out in the 90's also points to this fact.
Now take Kohli for example:
When he was playing against Bangladesh in Asia Cup, we had lost 2 wickets. The lower order had no Dhoni. Rahane couldn't rotate strike. Watch how he played and closed out the game coming in at great pressure. It was one his best innings that won't be rated because it was against Bangladesh.
The same Kohli got out against Pakistan cheaply and India paid the price but NO ONE blamed Kohli for that.
You know why? Cos losing the match or losing your wicket doesn't get your temperament questioned.
Its the HOW part that gets it questioned.
)
